Growing list of successful pot smokers

Journalist Radley Balko makes fun of the Office of National Drug Control Policy's new anti-pot disinformation campaign, which "suggest that drug users can look forward to a career as a 'burrito taster,' a 'couch security guard,' or 'remote control operator.'

Here’s my challenge to Agitator readers, bloggers, and others: In this comments thread, let’s compile a master list of admitted pot smokers—current or former—who not only haven’t ended up as heroin junkies or burnouts, but have gone on to lead successful lives. If the person is famous, include a link. But feel free to add yourselves and what you do now, too, if you fit the criteria. School teacher? Cop? Stay at home mom? Grad student? Count yourself in. You can leave out your name if you like. Or include it. Either way.

I’ll get it started:

Barack Obama, president-elect. Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the U.S. John Kerry, U.S. Senator and 2004 Democratic nominee for president. John Edwards, multi-millionaire, former U.S. Senator, and 2004 Democratic nominee for vice president. Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, 2008 Republican nominee for vice president. British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly, and and Chancellor Alistair Darling. Josh Howard, NBA all-star. New York Governor David Paterson. Former Vice President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Oscar winner Al Gore. Former Sen. Bill Bradley, who smoked while playing professional basketball. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former New York Governor George Pataki. Billionaire and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

I smoked a couple times and I’ll still alive. But, my job is nearly exactly what the ad here says. I tasted food for a living… tex-mex mostly. Burritos, enchiladas, tacos… sometimes empanadas but not much these days. Unforunately, the mexicans (legal and illegal) stole all the jobs. I ended up being a remote control tester for a few years but lost that gig after I got caught using crack on the job.

Well I kind of like the ad (and some other parts of the “above the influence” campaign I’ve seen)… bearing in mind of course it’s not aimed at grownups. Discouraging kids from using drugs — through advertising, not heavy-handed criminal prosecution — is a good thing. Us adults, hopefully, have developed the good sense to indulge in such things without overdoing it.

i was gonna add a comment
but i got high
i was gonna say something really smart
but then i got high
everyone seemed to think success is being famous
so i got high
so i got high
so i got high…

success is not measured by fame
success is not measured by wealth
success is not measured by social status
success is measured by inner contentment
i smoke pot when i feel like it
and i am content with who i am
i still have goals and dreams that i strive to accomplish, but i am content with who i am

A bit ridiculous, don’t you think? Like pointing to occasional drinkers who are CEOs when someone is lecturing you on the dangers of alcoholism.

While it’s a valid point that not all pot-users are potheads (the big bad stereotype) what are you proving by listing successful potsmokers? especially creative types whose daily lives are perhaps a bit less structured and all for all sorts of shenanigans.

I don’t think smoking 2x a day helps anyone get ahead in life, more likely to hurt their chances. can you honestly say you’ve never known any pothead losers who you thought would be better off if they left it alone for a bit?

Way I figure it is, anyone who has no ambition to get a job and doesn’t do anything but sit around smoking pot all day probably wasn’t going to amount to much with or without marijuana in their life.

The anti pot ads have always been insultingly stupid, like the one where the girl got pregnant at the party because she was too stoned. Anyone who’s every actually smoked pot can attest that these ads overblown dramatizations of reality. I say anyone who works on these anti-pot campaigns should first have to smoke some and see what the actual effects of it are like police officers who have be pepper sprayed before they’re allowed to carry pepper spray.

It’s a forlorn hope that some day, some US government will lead the world in giving the lie to the truckload of sewage implicit in the concepts of drug “enforcement” and drug “war”.

Not the next one, if there is still a significant plurality of Americans who still (hypocritically) subscribe to said manure about substances, and the alleged “criminal” aura of them. Because, sadly, it’s not about the substances themselves or their effects on persons who take them.

It’s about the hypocrisy and fraud implicit in majority rule without the highest respect for individual rights. It’s about “righteousness” that transforms fellow citizens to instant criminals; for behaviors that might not be well liked or might be harmful to their practitioners.

Before a punitive law is passed and a brand new “crime” is minted, there should be objective standards and tests to see if the behavior to be punished is in reality a crime. Like… Does it put other persons at risk without their consent? Does it harm other persons without their consent? Does it involve fraud or deception? Does it help to destroy the rights of others or enslave them? If the answer is NO to all these questions, no law should prohibit it!

I expect that some day they will go after coffee (or skateboarding, or chocolate, or bicycling), once some interested govt. agent proves it’s “bad” and makes people bad and increases the likelihood of traffic accidents and heart attacks, and enough people believe it and legislators ride the wave, and the “War on Coffee” is on and now we will have Colombian coffee kingpins…

Right, a majority of people might believe the cow-pie they get fed and not like coffee drinkers. They have a right to. But that’s not the same as a “right” to make coffee a crime because they can vote.

Also, Francis Crick- nobel prize-winning molecular biologist and neurologist who co-discovered the structure of DNA (he was a member of a pro-weed group at Cambridge, and also used LSD) and Stephen J. Gould, evolutionary biologist and great populariser of science.

There is nothing wrong with people exercising their free speech to discourage its use, especially among teenagers. It’s just that the government has no right to legislate our personal lives and what we put in our bodies. Just a brief reminder.

Another reminder: abovetheinfluence.com isn’t just some “people exercising their free speech to discourage its use”; it’s from the White House Office of Drug Control Policy.

I don’t know. The older ads were just plain lies: potheads drive high and kill their friends, play with guns and shoot themselves, get raped or become predatory rapists. And don’t forget that buying weed funds terrorism!

This, on the other hand, I like. It’s honest – sitting around like a lump is a common outcome of smoking a lot of pot. This is coming from someone who thinks it should be legal and taxed like alcohol.

my friends include: it techs, a physician, a lawyer, several physical therapists, nurses, a former school superintendant, the dog catcher, several former navy seals, an ex army ranger, and several stuntmen. all smoke the herb regularly. all are successful, some very much so. ive said it before and ill say it again: HEMP CAN SAVE OUR PLANET! also: re-@#16 Re: “I think marijuana needs a “pro-pot” advocacy organization” umm….the MPP

-abs thinks the drug-war is the second most appalling assault on civil liberties in the US, after the War on Terror . .. . . hrmmm, actually the War on Some Drugs might possibly be worse, forgot the civil forfeiture B$.

Pathetic as this ad is, I think we should have no problem with anti-MJ ads, campaigns, and even bold-faced lies. There is nothing wrong with people exercising their free speech to discourage its use, especially among teenagers. It’s just that the government has no right to legislate our personal lives and what we put in our bodies. Just a brief reminder.

I know two people who I would consider “successful” who smoke it more than twice a day. One is a web designer/developer, the other is a graphic designer. Neither have screwed up during their jobs, or even had a parking ticket. The only thing I see against it is that it’s rather expensive to smoke that much. They spend the equivalent of 2-3 packs a day to smoke two or three joints. Nevertheless, they still have money for rent, car(s), all the niceties of middle class life.

While we’re on the subject, I’m proud of my area. There’s a town close to me this past election that voted to make marijuana a “low priority”. Note that this is Arkansas.

They may all smoke or have smoked pot, and many of them are considered successful. But the real question isn’t about success, I don’t think, it’s about the level of happiness in a person’s life. If smoking pot or doing any drug for that matter hinders the emotional, spiritual, or intellectual growth of a person, then can s/he say s/he is truly happy? Of course, this may not be the case, and many people do attain true happiness while using. I for one, know I could not. So I count myself as a success for not using anymore, but moreover, for being happy. No one can tell you if you are successful or not, and only you can know if you really are.

does anyone know who actually designs these pieces for Above the Influence? I wouldn’t be surprised if some people the Above the Influence has employed have made ads for alcoholic beverages, prescription drugs or even films that feature drug use not in a totally negative light.

I don’t think smoking 2x a day helps anyone get ahead in life, more likely to hurt their chances. can you honestly say you’ve never known any pothead losers who you thought would be better off if they left it alone for a bit?

(a) Nothing hurts your chances of getting ahead in life like a criminal record for a consensual and victimless crime.

(b) Since when is life a race? He who dies with the most toys is still dead, as they say.

I’d rather look back and realize that all my mellow stoned conversations with my friends and family cost me the chance to get some fancy car, than realize that all the time I was working my keister off for my fancy car, my friends and family were drifting away.

Of course, sober conversations would work just fine too, but the point remains that those who spend more time getting ahead in life, spend less time living.

It’s amazing to see all the people on this listing that have freely admitted to smoking.
It seems that today we are forcing the average user of weed to lie and decive in order to even get their foot in the door of many “High” paying jobs. (pos. pee test = no job) Granted there are many jobs that weedsmokers should not bother applying for. But for the life of me I can’t think of any. Maybe after I finished this bowl I’ll remember a few. most likely not……

I personally think it’s very important to balance ignorant propaganda with contrasting examples. My main issue with the ad and what you’re saying is that both are based on the assumption that ‘pothead losers’ have only the weed to blame and not themselves.

The truth is that many people can live perfectly ‘successful’ lives while smoking as much as they like, and not only in creative professions. At the same time others may seek refuge for whatever reason by over-indulging in any number of things including but not limited to drugs. Still more people may have entirely different notions as to what a successful life may be and choose not to pursue tangible career goals. Some people are just lazy.

The point being that smoking pot is largely irrelevant to what you make of your life and the only real effect of an ad like this is to stoke a firewall of reactionary prejudice against all smokers regardless of their social input. A comparison to alcoholism is really not valid and would seem to betray a misunderstanding of the effects of either drug.

I think they do a good job at hitting their target audience. I don’t think they’re “stodgy” or seem like a “desperate attempt to look hip” at all. They seem cool to me, and I could see every one here loving them if they were “advertising” something else.

Plus, even though I smoke it myself, I don’t feel that I disagree with the it’s anit-pothead message. Occasional use is not equal to being a pothead. No one would call Obama, Clinton, Kerry, et al, “potheads” now would we?

Only problem with pot nowadays is that you’re liable to get a nice kick of meth in with it. Grow your own or know where your dope comes from

.
You know it’s god telling the pot dealers they are making too much money and to share it by adding meth, smack, opium and other pharmaceuticals too, so be carefull when you buy your pot from rich pot dealers.
I know this isn’t going to sound sarcastic to seven or eight people of the thousands that read this blog.

And they wonder why kids don’t believe them, when they say drugs are bad. The Generals of the Drug War lost credibility a long time ago. When children see so many people using a relatively harmless drug, without ever seeing any of the negative effects illustrated in these *drug awareness* campaigns they then lose them on the real dangers of a drug like crystal meth. You lied when you told me pot was bad, why should I believe you about meth?

I smoke pot from time to time. It sort of weirds me out for social situations, but I enjoy it alone to enjoy a movie or something right before it zonks me out. I like my life. That makes me a success, right?

Well, there’s ought to be a good deal of junkies and burnouts who would feel discriminated for not being on such list; but history belongs to the “winners”, not guys who, standing on the ten articles or less line at the store, finger nerveosly their bottle of booze, pay and quickly scurry away with their legal drug.

This idea of the list is good because the whole issue of pot is what the corporations want is to take over for the money and the government can tax it and they’re already making really strong pot anyway and have the packaging so they should just do it.

add my parents and just about every single person i know to that list; successful (if middle-class can be called successful) and have all smoked at some point. even my grandmother has smoked. oddly enough i have not; does this mean that i won’t be successful???????

As a therapist, I think probaly half the people I see use marijuana somewhat regularly, and I have not seen one who is a “pothead” (formerly known as reefer madness). They do so for various reasons but in general as a safe treatment for anxiety, depression, and physical pain.

From what I know, people in all occupations use marijuana. Some are considered a success by others, some consider themselves successful.

success is not measured by fame
success is not measured by wealth
success is not measured by social status
success is measured by inner contentment

point and game.

life’s what you make it. If you strive to be “successful” in terms of what society would consider it, then yeah you can measure it by how other people look at you and determine you as a person. If no one was ever around though, if we never had the intentions in the first place, who would be there to impress? Success is a concept. Concepts are man made thoughts like words which in the end of the greater being are nonexistent.